Fundamental British Values in Education

Lynn Revell, Hazel Bryan

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781787149533
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Educational Policy

The notion of Britishness and national identity have rarely been examined with such intensity in education and society as they are today. Although the requirement to promote a sense of nationhood in schools is not a new one, the politicised nature of the values associated with Britishness and the security agenda in which schools now operate has intensified greatly in recent years.
This timely book provides a critical analysis of the statutory requirements to promote Fundamental British Values in schools, universities and other childcare groups in the UK. It begins by charting the development of Britishness and British values in the post-war period and highlights how even in the recent past British values have been understood and executed in policy in relation to schools in very different ways. In the past Britishness and national identity was either assumed or conveyed through the employment of cultural forms; it is only now that Britishness in education, in the form of fundamental British values is articulated through explicitly political language.
The book continues by examining the impact of fundamental British values on teacher professionalism. It will show how the legislation and policy that structures the way teachers (and other educators) must engage with fundamental British values works to reposition the status of teachers in the public sphere. Teacher's work and relationship with the state is recast so that personal political and individual acts are now situated within the remit of state control and legislation. The concept of Liquid Professionalism is promoted as a form of teacher professionalism for these securitised times.

PART ONE

CHAPTER 1

RADICALISATION AND FUNDAMENTAL BRITISH VALUES

INTRODUCTION

There is no such thing as a set of values that is British; there are only the values that particular governments or policy documents at specific times insist are British. This first chapter charts the way a range of British values in education have been developed and promoted in two separate periods. The first period, from the mid-1990s to the end of the Brown Labour government in 2007, is notable as a time when British values were more likely to be articulated through cultural motifs that referenced a romanticised English past, to a time when British values are now articulated through political ideas that are presented as liberal values. The second period examines Britishness as a form of national identity as it was expressed in education through three key moments: the turn of the 20th century, the 1944 Education Act and the restorationist agenda of the ‘new right’ from the mid-1980s. The chapter argues that the articulation of ‘Britishness’ through political concepts is a significant development in the contemporary period and represents a break from past notions of Britishness that were either racialised or took the form of cultural narratives. The chapter begins with an overview of the origins of fundamental British values and the way they are presented in texts, policies and resources in schools.

TEXTS, POLICIES AND RESOURCES

The origin of fundamental British values is rooted in a positioning of radical Islam as a threat to liberal democracy. The phrase ‘fundamental British values’ appeared in the UK counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST as part of Prevent, and they must be first understood as an integral part of how educators are expected to identify and stop extremism. However, the notion of a prescribed set of British values established in relation to the perceived threat of Muslim extremism has an earlier genesis. In 2006 the Muslim Council of Great Britain, an umbrella group that represents over 500 Islamic organisations, refused to take part in Holocaust Memorial Day celebrations, arguing that the day should commemorate all genocides (BBC, 2006). In response, Ruth Kelly, then minister for Communities, demanded that organisations that ‘refuse to defend core British values’ and fail to take part in a ‘pro-active’ role in the fight against extremism should lose access to funding (Helm, 2006). Speaking at a meeting with Muslim groups at Government House, she stated that the government would no longer support groups that do not ‘stand up for our shared values and that people of all faiths in Britain shared “non-negotiable values” such as respect for the law and freedom of speech’ (Blitz, 2006). Kelly along with the then Minister for Immigration, Liam Byrne, had identified the common values they thought were British in a Fabian pamphlet. These included, ‘commitment to Britain, loyalty to our legal and political institutions, fairness and open mindedness, freedom of speech, respect for others and a tradition of tolerance’ (Kelly & Byrne, 2006, p. 7). The pamphlet, A Common Place, included a call to establish a Britain Day that would help groups forge community relations that demonstrate ‘a commitment to Britain and its people and loyalty to our legal and political institutions’ (Kelly & Byrne, 2006).

The perceived ‘crisis of British values’ has a genesis older than the recent preoccupation with fundamental British values (Wolton, 2006) and is shaped by ongoing critiques of multiculturalism (Parekh, 2000). New Labour commissioned a report that argued Britain needs common values to give it a sense of cohesion and in 2001 Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary, argued that it was the absence of common values that had weakened notions of citizenship (Blunkett, 2001) but core to any understanding of the way fundamental British values emerged in education policy is a recognition of how the relationship between promoting a set of British values and a particular model of Islam was established. A Common Place begins with a call for a new Britishness that could oppose the twin extremisms of radical Islam and the far right but thereafter makes no mention of the far right and repeatedly makes reference to the behaviour and expectations of Muslim communities. The relationship between the assumed threat posed by some Muslims to liberal democracy and the promotion of British values was reinforced by a number of high profile and influential position papers and discussions. Chief among them was the publication in 2006 of Celsius 7/7 written by Michael Gove. Celsius 7/7 describes what Gove refers to as ‘Islamism as totalitarianism’ and likens it to Nazism and Communism. Gove goes on to argue that the West has failed to defend liberal democracy and that there was a general failure to confront extremism in Whitehall, especially in the Home Office. Gove’s influence on counter-terrorism policy, on the government’s approach to Islam and Muslims and to counter-terrorism, is thought to have been strengthened through his appointment to the Extremism Taskforce, set up in the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder in 2013 (Hasan, 2014).

The relationship between the inculcation of national values and national cohesion through education has its genesis in the London bombings in 2005 (Osler, 2008). In the short time that fundamental British values have been a part of the policy and education landscape they have become the salient part of the anti-terrorism strategy and have therefore elevated the role of education in the fight against terrorism. The Prevent Strategy is one of four strands that are designed to create a comprehensive and interconnecting series of measures to deal with aspects of a terrorist threat. Coordinated by the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism in the Home Office, the Prevent Strategy and fundamental British values are an integral part of the UK’s war on terror. While other strands of CONTEST deal with the physical prevention of an attack, such as the strengthening of protection against an attack and measures to mitigate the impact of an attack (Pursue, Protect and Prepare), the focus of Prevent is to halt the spread and rise of extremism through disrupting the process of radicalisation.

First developed by a Labour government in 2006, Prevent determined how schools are expected to act; the definition of extremism, however, has evolved. The 2011 version of CONTEST mentions education once; thereafter it becomes one of a long list of groups/sectors (religious groups, the voluntary sector and the Internet) that are identified as having responsibility for combatting extremism. This first version of Prevent was characterised by a cautious approach to the way it presented the relationship between extremism and radicalisation. It urged caution in the way educators approached the possibilities of extremism and radicalisation; it included recommendations for the Department for Education, including ‘establishing a set of standards for teachers, which clarifies obligations regarding extremism’. The report recognised that some pupils were at risk and that they should be helped but added the caveat that any such support and intervention should be ‘proportionate’ and that ‘[i]t should not start from a misplaced assumption that there is a significant problem that needs to be resolved’ (Home Office, 2011, 10:44). By the time the second edition of Prevent was published it stated in the Foreword that the previous strategy had been neither rigorous nor effective enough in its approach to combatting extremism. It is in this context that the concept of fundamental British values was pushed to the fore as the focus for anti-extremism and as a symbol of resistance against violence and terror.

Just as importantly the link between fundamental British values, education and radicalisation also established a narrative that traces a link between a failure to commit to certain values and extremism, and then from extremism to terrorism. In the original version of Prevent the document referred to violent extremism, but its most recent incarnation refers simply to extremism. This means that the discourse on extremism has also shifted from one that focused on violent extremism to extremism — and extremism is now defined as being in opposition to British values. The definition of Britishness, once merely a subject for academic debate, pop surveys and patriotic politicians is now established as part of a discourse that critiques multiculturalism, segregation and diversity and positions this critique in relation to the fight against terrorism (Finney & Simpson, 2009; Lander, 2016).

The status of fundamental British values as a benchmark of anti-extremism and of the privileged role of education in anti-terrorism was heightened when the phrase was included in the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2012). The Teachers’ Standards are organised in two parts, the second of which is entitled ‘Personal and Professional Conduct’. It is here that teachers are instructed to ‘not undermine fundamental British values’ (DfE, 2012, p. 9). The document makes it clear that the terms and the definition are a repetition of the phrase as it is used in the Prevent Strategy and in doing so makes explicit the link between counter-terrorism, education, the role of the teacher and the values that teachers are expected to hold (Bryan, 2012). In an exceptional move the Teacher’s Standards go on to insist that all teachers must uphold these values both in their professional lives as teachers in schools and also in the private domain. The consequences of this demand and the impact it has on the nature of teacher professionalism will be explored in the Part Two of this book.

RESOURCES, POLICIES AND GUIDANCE — FUNDAMENTAL BRITISH VALUES IN PRACTICE

At the beginning of the last century, Britain had the biggest empire in history: bigger than the Roman Empire, bigger than the Mongol Empire, bigger than the Empire of Alexander the Great.

Yeates (2016, p. 22), God Bless the Queen

Resources produced to teach fundamental British values and guidance written to support the promotion of fundamental British values are overwhelmingly characterised by compliance and an awareness both of the legal status of the duty and of the possible consequences if fundamental British values are not promoted. Some voices have questioned the way fundamental British values have been presented in policy (O’Donnell, 2017) and others have drawn attention to the possible discriminatory impact of the values on Muslims (Scott-Bauman, 2017). However, the dominant theme underpinning resources and guidelines for fundamental British values is compliance, and the model of Britishness that emerges from the materials is monolithic and one dimensional. In many resources, compliance takes the form of materials that rarely trouble the nature of the values or which present them in ways that are simplistic and formulaic. In guidance and policies produced by schools and professional bodies, compliance takes the form of mapping the policies to the law and an awareness of the regulatory role of both Ofsted and Prevent in relation to school policy.

The Times Educational Supplement provides a list of the most favourably reviewed materials on fundamental British values (TES, 2015). In one resource on the list, a teacher provides a set of activities for a British Values Week: Tuesday (Rule of Law Day) is an example of the type of work teachers are providing for pupils. The PowerPoint asks a series of questions about the law: How old do you have to be to be held criminally responsible? Where are serious offences, like murder, heard? And, what is the name of the person who is in charge of a court? It informs pupils that ‘many laws go back to the Magna Carta’ and that ‘many countries base their laws on Britain’s’. The lesson is not just geared towards imparting a knowledge of the legal system — later in the PowerPoint presentation pupils are asked to reflect on the authority of the law in relation to a number of cases including the case of Marine Alexander Blackman who was sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting an injured Taliban soldier in Afghanistan. There is no evidence in the earlier part of the presentation that pupils are or will be engaged in discussions about the nature of justice or the basis on which laws are legitimate, yet the second half of the lesson is clearly designed to do this. The presentation reflects a desire on the part of the teacher to contribute to knowledge and to reflect on the problematic nature of some aspects of fundamental British values.

Similarly, a resource book produced to support teachers of Religious Education, Religious Education and British Values, includes ideas for lessons that both celebrate and problematise fundamental British values. One section on tolerance and respect advocates these values as positive but also illustrates, through a discussion on Islamophobia, how context and politics means these values are historically and culturally situated (Blaylock, Kate, & Moss, 2016). This dual approach to fundamental British values, especially in materials designed for Key Stages 3 and 4, blends a way of teaching about fundamental British values that conforms to the requirements to promote fundamental British values but in ways that also allow teachers to explore and trouble over some aspects of the values. It is also an approach that would demand a level of confidence and knowledge on the part of the teacher both in relation to the law, democracy and tolerance, and in engaging with controversial issues in the classroom — skills that we know many teachers are not prepared for either in their training or through professional development (Oulton, Day, & Dillon, 2007).

In contrast, the majority of resources produced for younger children lack any critical dimension; their aim is to encourage pupils to celebrate and engage positively with fundamental British values. In many resources, the desire to celebrate means authors sometimes provide explanations that are simplistic, jingoistic and which misrepresent the full meaning of the values. The British Values Series for Key Stage 2 is a good example of texts that would not be out of place in a pre-World War I classroom. God Bless the Queen looks at the role of the monarchy and considers the contemporary and historical role of kings and queens, including the link with Empire and the Commonwealth. Apart from establishing that the British Empire was very big and that it sometimes ‘involved a lot of conquering and not a little bloodshed’ (Yeates, 2016, p. 23), it presents the link between the Monarchy, the Empire and the Commonwealth as a series of benign relationships. The Queen is described as being a ‘great source of wisdom’ and a symbol of national identity who is able to act in a unifying role as she interacts ‘with all sorts of people on a daily basis’ (Yeates, 2016, p. 15). The book is also typical of other books in that although support for the Monarchy is not identified as a British value in Prevent, resources often interpret fundamental British values as support for royalty or with the promotion of nostalgic activities and pastimes (Osborne, 2016).

Resources for both primary and secondary schools are predominantly uncritical of fundamental British values. Perhaps this is not surprising as these materials have been written in part, so that schools can demonstrate compliance with Prevent and Ofsted. Very few materials and resources trouble over the ideas of tolerance or respect for difference, but we came across none that sought to engage pupils with the legitimacy of the values themselves it was frequently the case that the values were dealt with in an uneven manner. The values were often dealt with in an uneven manner. Respect for difference, tolerance, liberty and democracy seemed to generate a variety of activities and ideas for lessons. The Rule of Law, however, is persistently explained as ‘obeying the law’, encouraging children ‘to respect those in authority’ (Osborne, 2016, p. 25) or explaining individual accountability to the law. The imperative to promote democracy, the Rule of Law, tolerance and respect for difference as values means that these concepts, practices and traditions are presented as uncontested truths. The notion that all of these ideas have been and continue to be contested and are the product of often violent conflict is mostly absent in resources (Wolton, 2017). This static approach to the presentation of fundamental British values not only misrepresents the history of these ideas, it also distorts their meaning as political concepts, an idea that will be explored further in the next chapter.

CONTROVERSY AND GUIDELINES

By the way, did it ever occur to you to call them just: ‘Values’?

Michael Rosen

A recurring theme in the guidance and resources produced by some professional bodies is a reminder to their members that the requirement to promote fundamental British values is statutory and regulated by Ofsted. That is, schools and practitioners who fail to demonstrate compliance with the law or with Ofsted will be penalised. The online social networking platform for childcare providers, Childcare.co.uk, warns its members that ‘Whether you agree with it or not, Ofsted inspectors are required to make a judgement about how well we deliver a curriculum which includes teaching children about British values’ (Neville, 2016). The regulatory nature of the requirement to promote fundamental British values can also be seen in the way some resources carefully lay out the benchmarks and indicators that inspection will seek to identify as proof of compliance on the part of providers. In Promoting Fundamental British Values in the Early Years the authors include an end section on ‘The Prevent Duty and your Ofsted inspection’ which provides a detailed grid that itemises ‘What will inspectors do?’ and another entitled ‘What are they looking for?’ The book provides a ‘Prevent duty checklist’ as well as a summary of requirements from Ofsted documentation (Sargent, 2016). Similarly, the Foundation Years website warns its members that if providers adopt a minimalist approach they will fall short of the requirement ‘to actively promote’ and could be penalised. The website provides examples of what the Duty means in practice and they go on to reassure their members that ‘We have shared these with the DfE who agree that they are helpful examples’ (Foundationyears.org.uk). The message is that the ‘requirement to actively promote fundamental British values’ will be taken seriously by Ofsted and the Home Office and that organisations that fail to thoroughly embed them will be penalised.

The majority of resources written for teachers or guidelines produced by professional bodies are uncritical of the notion of fundamental British Values or of the requirement to promote them in schools. However, there are some voices of disquiet. The National Union of Teachers passed a motion at its annual conference in 2016 condemning fundamental British values as an act of cultural supremacism and called on teachers to celebrate human values and anti-racism rather than fundamental British values (Espinoza, 2016). Many of the critical voices tend to focus not on the values themselves but on the fact that they are labelled British. In a letter to Michael Gove, the then Secretary for Education, the Children’s Laureate Michael Rosen accused the government of semantics in its use of the term British (Rosen, 2014). He argued that when the government placed the term British in front of the values it did so with the express intention of persuading us ‘that there is indeed something specially British about the items on the checklist’. He went on to say that not only was the use of the adjective British ‘parochial, patronising and arrogant’ but that expecting teachers to imply that values like democracy are uniquely British is tantamount to expecting them to lie in the classroom. Rosen ends his letter with a rhetorical question ‘By the way, did it ever occur to you to call them just: “Values”?’ The puzzle over the use of the term ‘British’ in relation to values is echoed in the claim that schools and teachers are already ‘doing’ the values but not in way that explicitly badge them as British. On the Key for School Governors website one article argues that there is no need for a separate British Values Policy because British values are already incorporated through existing school policies (schoolgoverors.thekeysupport.com).

The sense of Britishness that emerges from resources and the hundreds of school policies and guidelines posted online has three themes. The first is the monolithic nature of the values and the way they are discussed and presented. The same phrases, examples and even activities are endlessly repeated. Books and resources stress that there are five British values; there is no sense that some British people may have other values or indeed that other values even exist. The implication is that people living in Britain who have other values are not truly British.

The second is that the values are promoted in the context of a threat to the safety of children and young people. The message is simple, these values are celebrated and cherished because they counter radicalisation, and they act as a focus around which national identity can be cohered and in doing so create a narrative that challenges extremism (Farrell, 2016). This aspect is particularly evident in guidelines produced by professional organisations and school policies where it is normal to include quotes from and references to Prevent or the Prevent Duty Guidance and in some cases the Counter-Terrorism Act 2015 itself.

The third theme is evidence of a single narrative of the nature of B...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Introduction
• Part One
• Part Two
• References
• Index